santabear
-
Posts
273 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by santabear
-
-
The Legend is right on.
When we play it, we'll know. And there almost certainly will be patches a la "SC classic."
-
I agree that the metric system is a more logical and easier-to-use system than the English system.everyone is accustomed to it, it works, and it would be incredibly expensive to change it. People would need to completely change their conceptual reference...when you add it all up, it would likely never happen even if there was a good justification...But the arguement above (about time and clocks) is exactly what kept the US from going metric in the 1970s.
-
Thanks for the update.
It's encouraging that the AI and related scripts are complex enough that they're taking some time for the expereinced folks to work through.
I hear artillery rumbling in the distance...
SB
-
I think the fact that there isn't much to discuss about Strategic Command or SC2 at the moment is a big factor.
When the game comes out, I bet there will be a lot of active discussions about cool things, problems, strategies, PBEM leagues and whatnot.
It's just that there's a lull right now, and folks want to have something to do in here.
The saying "idle hands are the Devil's workshop," is true.
SB
-
Hi Desert Dave,
I didn't take anything you said amiss, and I hope one bear's attempt at a haiku didn't offend you.
We have a problem in this here forum:
We're here to discuss SC2, but it's hard to discuss what we don't know.
So some discussions (e.g. hex/tile) seem like beating deceased equines, while others (e.g. the campaign editor, the AI) are star-gazingly philosophical and idealistic.
Until the game is released, we don't really have much to discuss here--which is probably why the discussions ramble at times.
In any case, any information you can share is appreciated.
SB
-
The profession of arms can be a noble calling. It can also lead to some of the worst degradation of which men are capable. Hopefully, we will always be able to attract people of good character to practice it. The people who serve define what it is.
To me, "I was a soldier" doesn't mean, "I'm better than you," it means "I was willing to put it all on the line." And that kind of committment deserves respect.
So, Ike, I think we (North Americans) will always continue to respect and value our soldiers--and to always try to find a better way to do things.
-
Agreed.
But will it be able to write haiku?
Which is only partly facetious...it's interesting to ponder that we can make AI so it thinks as well as any human. Can we make one that also FEELS?
Read the first post thinking about the ART of war (or the art of music, poetry, whatever). There is an artistic side to SC--which is what the most "elegant" strategies involve. And isn't that what we yearn for AI to duplicate?
-
Back to the topic: AI
I keep hearing how no AI can compete with human intelligence.
For example, AI cannot write haiku. It would be completely at a loss as to how to proceed in this thread.
Yet, somehow, I sense from this thread that even human intelligence has its limitations at times...
...maybe the AI will have its day soon.
-
I like hexes, too (and I lobbied for them).
But I LOVE "SC classic" and if the guy who developed that game (Hubert) says that he can make a better game if he uses tiles--well, folks, he's the expert.
And it's HIS game.
It's too late to change SC2, but it's too SOON to complain about it, don't you think?
SB
-
Chaos wears many hats,
Yet cattle seek Nirvana.
Your posts pain Krishna.
SB-san
[ February 09, 2006, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]
-
Well, if it were possible to toggle between AI and hotseat mode, that would do it.
I've suggested before that it would be good if the human player could take over for AI for a few turns--the idea of swapping sides is a logical extension of that idea.
If the game could be re-opened in a different mode, the existing machinery would work:
1. Save game
2. Quit
3. "Load Saved Game"
4. BUT this would take you to the "Choose sides" page (which it doesn't now). Just select the opposite side, game opens, etc.
Alternatively, there could be a way to enter "hotseat" mode from within an AI game (funciton key?), and then to go back via the "Choose sides" page. So:
1. Hit fn key to toggle hotseat mode
2. Play in hotseat mode or toggle again and choose your side.
I think the notion of leaving and re-entering the game and choosing sides is better than simply a "switch sides" button.
SB
-
Interesting thoughts about AI from
Title: Thoughts on AI in Strategic Games
By: Jim Cobb
Date: 2005-11-13 891
Flashback: Orig. Multipage Version
Hard Copy: Printer Friendly
Thoughts on AI in Strategic Games
I have a long-standing policy on not critiquing games I review until the review is published. I do this in deference to the publishers and am not changing. However, I’m playing Crown of Glory and World War II: The First Blitzkrieg for review and questions raised about AI on forums and news groups have made me think why such games may not play out historically. Here are some thoughts:
The AI, dumb as it is tactically, will never be as stupid as the Third Alliance in 1805 or the Allied High Command in 1940. Its side’s strengths and weaknesses will be known to it and will allow a more rational concentration of force and effort. We won’t see a General Mack squandering time and resource at Ulm nor will the units of four armies just sit around as in 1940.
Perhaps more importantly, the AI won’t be overawed when the player is Napoleon, Lee or the Wehrmacht. The AI has no psyche, no emotional baggage so it won’t be mesmerized by previous experiences or propaganda. Designers may attempt to imitate doctrinal fallacies but it won’t throw away what advantages or capabilities it might have.
Therefore, players should not expect a replay of history. Dumb as AIs are, they won’t be paralyzed like the Austrians or Gamelin. Players will win eventually, but they will do so only by doing something new with historical parameters, assuming the game has those parameters.
Given all this, what should gamers expect? When playing on defense, the AI should expect the human player to try the historical strategy first. Players have a mania about doing better than Rommel or Napoleon using their own approach. The AI should see this coming and prepare counter-offensives, concentrating in better positions, moving on flanks and so forth. When players get inventive, the AI should try one of two extremes: either a surprise attack early on or a precipitate retreat to gain time to evaluate the human’s intention. In the latter case, the AI should then decide which level to try for and then allocate resources accordingly.
AI offense is another matter entirely. Using a historical approach against a human with the most meager knowledge of the era is suicide. The player will see “A” and react in a different way than the historical defender then. The AI should think out of the box. “AIs don’t think” some exclaim. Why not? Half the key to winning in real life or games is psychological. Programmers should understand that nobody reacts well to surprises. AIs could either be programmed to make a very powerful attack somewhere to inspire “shock and awe”. Conversely, the AI can “ice” the human like a defending football team calling a timeout right before the field goal kicker signals for the snap. Wait a few turns before implementing the main plan, launch a few feints, reconnoiter a while. The human will get nervous, become tentative and question his dispositions or even try a premature counterattack.
These concepts would make games more suspenseful and exciting. I’m no programmer but I would be surprised if game developers couldn’t implement these ideas. Anything would be better than the present obvious AI options, giving the AI hidden advantages or--most unworthy of all--surrender writing good AI to PBEM or online play.
-
Marcus, dude, don't send in money to BF, buy a dictionary first...
...seriously...
I first encountered "SC classic" in the downloadable DEMO that's on this site. It was a great way to get a feel for the game and to see if I would like it.
Hopefully, BF will continue it's practice of providing demos,
* calls into wilderness *
AND WILL PROVIDE A DEMO OF SC2 SOON...soon...soon...soo...so...s...
-
Pzgndr:
Thanks for your good observations.
But from this thread, the horse ain't dead yet. The decision may have been made that the game will have tiles, but folks still seem to have strong feelings about it.
It's like "who was better, Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus?" There are some discussions that won't ever end. And since this is a discussion forum, it's probably a good thing that they don't!
-
Starting Feb. 27, I should have quite a bit of time on my hands (foot surgery...out of work for quite a while).
Are bears allowed to compete?
SB
-
Starting Feb. 27, I should have quite a bit of time on my hands (foot surgery...out of work for quite a while).
Are bears allowed to compete?
SB
-
OK, so I've got to add my $.02:
I've loved SC ever since I first bought it--it's a great game--and I can't imagine that SC2 will be worse regardless of hexes/tiles/triangles or whatever. I'm looking forward to an engaging, stimulating and challenging game.
With that being said, if there is an SC3 I would vote for hexes.
But I'll have SC2 to change my mind about the tiles!
SB
P.S. There's going to be grumbling about SC2 from now until the first patch and beyond. Not becuase it won't be good, but because everyone has their own mental image of what the "perfect" game should be. And it's unlikely that Hubert's image will be identical with anyone else's. So we'll have plenty to post about even AFTER the game comes out.
Better to have people who care about this enough to get passionate about hexes that a bunch of apathetic nonentites...
-
Keep in mind that one of the problems with SC1 is that the Eastern front becomes a WWI-style battle.
Without stacking, there's no way to open a gap in a solid front (especially without a lot of AF's).
The limit on unit building seems like it will keep the front more fluid and will allow more maneuver warfare--which should make for interesting games.
SB
-
POW and concentration camps didn't have much effect on Germany's strategy. Any effect of extra labor can be accounted for with MPPs.
In real life, whatever economic plusses Germany got from their POW (Russian) and concentration camp policies, they lost (and more) by their destruction of local economies.
So adding camps to the game wouldn't add much.
We all should keep in mind, though, that when we "play" Axis, our "good guys" murdered millions of innocent people. Of course if I ran Germany then, not only would we have won the war, but we would have been great humaniarians too!
-
A GREAT book on the trials is "Justice at Nuremberg" by Robert Conot. Not only is it beautifully written, but it has some interesting details of the behind-the-scenes stories, including the deliberations and the horse-trading that went on to finally acquit Schacht along with Fritzsche and Neurath.
I'm sorry to have missed the show.
Did that say anything at all about N.D. Zorya? He was one of the ass't. Russian proscecutors who shot himself--apparently in despair over the Katyn forest fiasco. But I've always wondered why he wound up taking the fall on that one.
Thanks to Rambo for the heads-up!
SB
-
Has there been a discussion of direct/indirect fire for this hypothetical artillery?
There would have to be spotting rules and cetera--but as has been pointed out, this is more applicable to tactical games (PanzerBlitz?) than a strategic level game, I think.
SB
-
Yogi's right. Considering how much disaffectation there is everytime the release date has been postponed, I don't blame any of the SC team (i.e. Hubert) for simply waiting until there's some certainty about "it's done" before making other announcements.
We bears have to stick together...
SB
-
Yogi's right. Considering how much disaffectation there is everytime the release date has been postponed, I don't blame any of the SC team (i.e. Hubert) for simply waiting until there's some certainty about "it's done" before making other announcements.
We bears have to stick together...
SB
-
Of course the all-time winner was PanzerBlitz, but I always enjoyed one called "The Next War." Well all 10 or so games of it that I played. It took weeks to play the damn thing!
SB
Pacific War Extension Scenario Idea
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
The map part seems clear.
But if the MPPs and unit numbers are "set" for the European theater (assuming that some units and MPPs are off fighting a Pacific war that we don't see), a Pacific extension would require adjusting some of those base values.
Otherwise, you'll have a very large map with too few units to use coherently, don't you think?
SB